Liquid Fuel Supply (Minimum Biobased Petrol Content) Amendment Bill 2022
Plain English Summary
Overview
This bill sought to strengthen Queensland's ethanol mandate, which has never been met since it was introduced in 2017. It would have doubled penalties for fuel retailers not selling enough ethanol-blended petrol and required that E10 fuel contain at least 9% ethanol rather than the federally permitted minimum of just 1%. The bill was defeated at second reading and did not become law.
Who it affects
Fuel retailers and wholesalers would have faced stricter enforcement and new documentation requirements. Queensland's biofuel industry and sugar cane regions like Sarina, Ingham, and Ayr could have benefited from increased ethanol demand. Motorists would have had more certainty about what they're actually getting when they buy E10.
Key changes
- Would have doubled penalties for fuel retailers not meeting the 4% ethanol sales mandate — up to $55,140 for a first offence and $551,400 for repeat offences
- Would have required all ethanol-blended petrol sold in Queensland to contain at least 9% ethanol, closing a loophole where it could contain as little as 1%
- Would have required fuel wholesalers to document ethanol percentages when supplying retailers, with penalties up to $13,785
- Included a 12-month grace period for retailers and wholesalers to comply with the new minimum ethanol content requirements
- Aimed to support regional ethanol producers and proposed new plants at Ingham, Pentland, and Ayr in North Queensland
Bill Story
The journey of this bill through Parliament, including debate and recorded votes.
▸Committee13 Oct 2022View Hansard
Referred to Transport and Resources Committee
▸Second Reading22 Aug 2023 – 10 Oct 2023View Hansard
That the bill be now read a second time
Vote on whether to pass the KAP private member's bill requiring E10 fuel to contain minimum 9% ethanol and doubling penalties for non-compliance with Queensland's biofuels mandate. The bill was defeated 5-83, with only KAP, PHON and one independent supporting it.
The motion was defeated.
▸Show individual votesHide individual votes
Ayes (5)
Noes (83)
▸14 members spoke4 support10 oppose
Strongly supported the bill as a KAP initiative, arguing biofuels reduce tailpipe emissions by 28 per cent, support regional industries, enhance fuel security and create jobs. Criticised the government for not policing the existing ethanol mandate and scrapping the E10 app.
“If we are talking about reducing our footprint, why would we not put E10 in the tank which can be delivered cheaper than standard fuel? By mandating it we can reduce the emissions from petrol-driven vehicles by 28 per cent across Queensland overnight, with no cost to the taxpayer.”— 2023-10-10View Hansard
As the bill's sponsor, moved the second reading and argued the bill simply requires E10 to contain at least 9% ethanol and doubles fines for non-compliance with the existing mandate, mirroring New South Wales legislation.
“All we are asking for is the state government and the opposition to support something very minute, just to send a small signal to the ethanol industry that there is a glimmer of hope and a future for biofuels being used in Queensland.”— 2023-08-22View Hansard
While acknowledging KAP's promotion of biofuels and the opportunities in renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel, indicated the government's alternative approach through its own policy framework rather than supporting this bill.
“In May we released an options paper, which has now closed. The paper asked everyone for input about biofuels, sustainable fuels and how we get there.”— 2023-10-10View Hansard
As Minister for Energy, opposed the bill on the grounds that the proposed penalties are impractical and the problem is not borne out by evidence. Outlined the government's alternative approach through a sustainable liquid fuels strategy and investments in sustainable aviation fuel and hydrogen.
“Put simply, this is not a question of support for this industry or otherwise, but it is the government's view that the proposals in the private member's bill—the proposed penalties, the fines for noncompliance measures—are impractical.”— 2023-08-22View Hansard
As the bill's sponsor, delivered the reply speech rebutting claims that the bill would harm small retailers (who are exempt), defending the doubling of penalty units, and arguing the bill mirrors existing New South Wales legislation to support the biofuels industry.
“We just want to send a small indicator to those out there who are looking to invest in biofuels in Queensland and who want to see biofuels being used in our vehicles in Queensland for the right reasons—that is, to support our agriculture industry and to do the right thing by the environment.”— 2023-10-10View Hansard
Strongly supported the bill, arguing the ethanol mandate has never been properly enforced since 2017 and highlighting the opportunities for Queensland's sugar and grain industries. Drew comparisons with Brazil's 27% ethanol mandate.
“Passing this legislation in this House is the best hope that we have to provide some form of enforcement.”— 2023-08-22View Hansard
As committee chair, spoke against the bill, finding it unworkable, unnecessary and potentially unconstitutional. Argued it would disproportionately affect small regional businesses and that the government's sustainable liquid fuels strategy is a better approach.
“Unfortunately this bill is not the way forward to advance the sugar industry or grow biofuel consumption in Queensland and I cannot support it.”— 2023-08-22View Hansard
As shadow minister for natural resources, mines and energy, acknowledged the bill's sound intent but opposed it due to concerns about unintended consequences for small retailers, border community issues, inconsistency with Commonwealth legislation, and potential impacts on the grain-reliant livestock industry.
“From the outset, I would like to say that this bill has sound intent. However, the LNP has concerns surrounding the practicality of the legislation and unintended consequences.”— 2023-08-22View Hansard
Opposed the bill, arguing it introduces unnecessary regulation for a problem that data shows does not exist, as fuel suppliers already average about 9% ethanol in E10. Highlighted the shift towards electric and hybrid vehicles and the future potential of biofuels for aviation.
“I will not support punishing the fuel supply outlets with bigger fines and more red tape. What I will do is support the smart clean and green fuels of the future.”— 2023-08-22View Hansard
As committee deputy chair, acknowledged the bill's good intentions but opposed it due to concerns about additional regulation on small and medium regional retailers, disproportionate penalties, and reversal of the onus of proof.
“To me this bill looks at more regulation on small- and medium-sized retailers in rural and regional Queensland.”— 2023-08-22View Hansard
Opposed the bill, arguing the doubled penalties are excessive, the minimum content provisions would be unconstitutional, and the New South Wales experience showed that removing consumer choice led to motorists switching to more expensive premium fuels.
“When New South Wales experimented with phasing out regular unleaded petrol without ethanol, what happened was that those motorists who could not or did not want to use E10 were forced to buy more expensive premium petrol.”— 2023-08-22View Hansard
Opposed the bill due to concerns about supply-side controls driving up fuel costs, compliance burdens on small retailers, potential impacts on the Darling Downs feedlot industry, and inconsistencies with Commonwealth legislation.
“Placing massive fines on small retailers to try to force the supply side up is not the approach that I would like to see taken.”— 2023-08-22View Hansard
Opposed the bill, noting the existing mandate has almost doubled ethanol sales and that the proposed penalties are excessive. Argued the government's sustainable liquid fuels strategy is the better path forward.
“Simply doubling maximum penalties will not achieve the effect that the mechanism is designed to. It is just going to result in less choice for motorists and increased use of more expensive petrol.”— 2023-08-22View Hansard
Thanked KAP for highlighting enforcement failures but could not support the bill due to concerns about red tape, fuel price increases, border community impacts, and the evolving biofuels market. Criticised the government's failure to enforce the existing mandate.
“If the government enforced the existing mandate that would certainly be a very good thing because biofuels are important to Queensland, they are important to the future of energy and they are an important fuel source.”— 2023-08-22View Hansard